One Law for All has published a report by Adam Barnett and Maryam Namazie, entitled Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right, which looks at the BNP, the EDL, and the “Stop Islamization” franchises. According to the executive summary:

Whilst it is crucial to combat Islamism and Sharia law and defend citizenship and universal rights and secularism, it is equally vital to oppose the far-Right. Islamism and the Far-Right are two sides of the same coin using similar methods, ideologies and tactics in order to promote their bleak and inhuman worldview.

I looked at One Law for All’s approach to the subject of sharia back in 2009.

The report has been promoted by Harry’s Place (here and here), and three of the individuals it discusses in the “Stop Islamization” section – Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Stephen Gash – have issued responses. Namazie, who chairs One Law for All, is described by Spencer as “a Marxist antisemite”, while Harry’s Place is “a Leftist dhimmi blog… which dabbles dilettanishly in counter-jihad poses while seldom missing an opportunity to denigrate and defame genuine counter-jihadists”. That’s a bit too subtle for Geller, who simply calls Harry’s Place an “Islamic apologist blog”.

Wading through the invective, four substantive objections can be identified: that Spencer is accused of demonizing all Muslims; that Stop Islamization of America’s links with Joseph John Jay have again been raised; that Pamela Geller is accused of supporting Serbian war criminals; and that Stop Islamisation of Europe is accused of links with the European far-right.

The report quotes Spencer as saying that “there is no distinction in the American Muslim community between peaceful Muslims and jihadists.” Spencer responds:

See, to take one of many examples, here, where I say, in connection with mosques getting extra police protection, “This is a nation of laws, not vigilantes, and the principle of innocent until proven guilty still holds and must hold.” And here, where I said that “everyone is innocent until proven guilty” and “many Muslims are not on board with this supremacist program.”

What I am saying in the quote is that the “extremists” are not one sect and the “moderates” another, such that they go to different mosques and have no truck with one another. In fact, they are all mixed up together, as numerous jihad plots in the US show — the jihadist turns out to have attended a local mosque, which quickly disavows him.

It’s true that Spencer has occasionally referred to “Muslims of conscience”, but this is a very minor note in his overall rhetoric. Why does Spencer constantly make sarcastic reference to “misunderstanders of Islam” whenever an act of Jihadist brutality is reported? It’s clear from his and Geller’s writings that any moderate Muslims either don’t know their religion or are involved in deceit.

As for Joseph John Jay, he came to wider attention last year when some sanguinary quotes came to light (One Law for All cites one of my blog entries on the subject). However, according to Spencer:

John Jay does not actually have any role in or position with SIOA, but be that as it may, the report is lying about him. In reality, he has written, in his inimitable fashion, “i do not advocate carte blanche killing one’s liberal relative, nor all muslims. to assert differently is a lie.”

The brevity of Spencer’s response here is telling. Jay’s rhetoric was obviously violent, whatever he may have claimed since, and this is why Spencer doesn’t even attempt to discuss it directly. Further, Jay’s signature appears on the articles of agreement of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which runs SIOA, and he’s a member of SIOA’s board. Perhaps he doesn’t play any active role in the organisation, but why is such a person there at all?

Geller has never defended Milosevic at all; she has only expressed skepticism about some of the claims made about Serbian concentration camps – a skepticism that many journalists and historians share.

…Geller is not saying that Bosnian Muslims committed suicide in order to manipulate media coverage, but killed their own in order to create the illusion of Serb attacks on civilians and thereby manipulate media coverage. The Palestinians do that, so why wouldn’t jihadists in the Balkans? But of course, Namazie retails that Palestinian propaganda, so it is not surprising that her colleague would be a stooge for the jihad in the Balkans as well.

Spencer also provides a link to one of Geller’s interminable blog posts, in which she describes the trial of Radovan Karadži? as “a sharia court”.

Stephen Gash, meanwhile, has a response on the SIOE website to claims that SIOE has links with the far-right in Europe:

Moderate Muslims are the real enemies, in SIOE’s opinion, because they are the ones permittting and often encouraging the so-called radicals’ takeover. They are the smokescreen for Islamisation. Why else are so-called radicals gaining power in Muslim countries?

…One Law for All uses the usual communist tactic of guilt by association, using long past associations, if they even existed, to cast doubt on what SIOE and SIOA are about.

Stephen Gash has been on demonstrations alongside, not with, Maryam Namazie, but this does not make him a communist, nor does it make her sensible and rational like Anders and Stephen. It does not even make her and Stephen associates…

Enemies Not Allies is named after a seminar of the same name that took place in January. Spencer noted it at the time, complaining of

a recent conference hosted by the communist antisemite Maryam Namazie and devoted to attempting to smear many anti-jihad forces, including the English Defense League and our own Stop Islamization of America, as neofascists…

However, among those present was Douglas Murray, who, according to Spencer, offered a

ringing defense (of me also, for which I am grateful) and denunciation of the Left’s guilt-by-association tactics.

This from a man who regards Rick Perry as the “stealth jihad candidate” for President. It’s Spencer’s usual response when an awkward association is raised – he’s accused me of the same thing (supposedly in cahoots with Charles Johnson). Of course, I’m not in favour of “guilt-by-association tactics” either – although it’s a vice that can be found across the political spectrum. However, when a socio-political organisation or movement seeks to influence public discourse in a particular way, it is reasonable to seek understanding by taking note of how the various players interact, associate, and influence one another. A moral judgement of “guilt” or “innocence” is not the issue.

Last month, Namazie’s co-author Adam Barnett made a late appearance as the named organiser of a protest by the “Anti-Extremism Alliance” against an Hizb ut-Tahrir conference in London. Barnett’s name replaced that of the original organiser (one of two ex-EDL members who were due to speak to the Quilliam Foundation a couple of weeks later) when the event started getting press attention.

7 Responses

The thing is, this Stasi-style guilt by association is absurd. Over the past four years I have met many people opposing Islamisation and sharia law. I have co-protested alongside them. I don’t for one moment suggest they are associates of mine or agree with what I say. Many have denigrated me, including Maryam Namazie whom I stood barely four feet from when she was delivering a speech in London.

People are more sophisticated politically than Maryam Namazie and, unfortunately, the media give credit for. This is especially so for those opposing Islam.

If we look at the British so-called “far-right” – such as the real bigots of the BNP, National Front and associated groups (including those that co-opt the term “Freedom” into their names), there is a strong tendency for state control, and demonisation of various special interest groups. Scared of anti-hate crime laws, the rhetoric against non-whites and homosexuals has been played down, but it remains just as strong as it ever did. These aspects of desiring state control put them very closely in line with Nazis, who were – after all – National Socialists..

Sadly, there are pontificating leftists who puff up the term bigotry and do not see how their own bigotry is coming into play.

And such people frequently use the term bigot selectively, ignoring the bigotry and downright terrorism of groups like Hamas.

It is interesting to see how many leftists support the UAF and its policies of silencing views they do not like – when freedom of speech is a fundamental part of a democracy.

If someone says what you do not like, you have a right to make a counter-statement. Unfortunately, leftists within various British trade unions support the violent suppression of freedom of expression exercised by the UAF and its thuggish followers.

I do not agree with the EDL’s public protests, but I agree far less with those who support the violent and lawless suppression of their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

The leadership of the UAF is also openly racist, demanding that only non-white people should have positions of leadership, a position which – when combined with a “whispering campaign” smearing others as “Zionists” – caused Searchlight to publicly split from organizational involvement with the UAF.

So please, if you think racism is all right when carried out by people who claim to be “redressing balances”, remember that racism is the highest form of bigotry.

I also wonder what Namazie is meaning when she demands suppression of the “far-right”. As a Marxist, why is her position as a “far-leftist” seen as entirely socially acceptable by the bien-pensant of contemporary Britain?

LIsten to Radio 4 – Laurie Penny, Tariq Ali and Ken LIvingstone – all from the Trotskyite/Marxist end of the political spectrum – are frequently invited to give their opinions on issues.

I have no problem with that, other than these people are brought in to bring “balance” to discourse. But why no-one from the right? This breaks the BBC’s public remit of being balanced. When a relatively central leftist editorial direction is followed, and far-leftists are brought in to provide “balance”, the fulcrum of this “balance” moves further and further to the left.

When a sole right-wing voice like David Starkey is brought in to the BBC’s Newsnight to give an opinion, he is outnumbered by leftists who deny him his right to expression, and then he is demonized as a “bigot.”

Read his editorial in the Telegraph, where he explains what he meant before he was so rudely interrupted:

Sadly, it is the ignorant fuckwits of British society who think their one-liners denouncing others as “bigots” who do a grand disservice to the traditions of democracy and freedom of political discourse.

The irony about all these Islamophobic bigots (read: Adrian Morgan and Stephen Gash) is that while they’re quick to write a lengthy screed about the evils of Islam, leftism, and basic human decency, all while purporting to be champions of free speech and so on, they absolutely love hypocritical frauds like Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Ali Hirsi (as we can gauge from his Facebook page, Morgan is a big fan of the two). Hirsi has said quite clearly that she opposes several religious rights for Muslims and concurrently supports Geert Wilders—who wants to ban the Quran and tax the hijab. As for Wafa Sultan, she has mulled over the idea of nuking Mecca. I suppose, using Morgan’s brilliant logic, taking issue with the aforementioned makes one a “bigot.”

But I also suppose Morgan’s right about rightwingers being a minority in the mainstream media. Incidentally, polls show that the overwhelming majority of rightwing Republicans in the U.S. dislike Muslims. One can only imagine what loons like those in the Tea party think.

[…] progressives against blocking with the right. This is noted approvingly by the progressive blog Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion—and with outrage by FrontPageMag, in a screed dubbed “When Marxist Anti-Semitic […]

My Book Reviews

Note on Attacks

Anyone who comments on current affairs on-line risks being smeared by attack sites and/or abusive Tweets. This is particularly so if one chooses to challenge dishonesty or other kinds of reprehensible behaviour.

As a result of making a stand in a few particular instances, I have become the focus of a number of such attacks. Those who have targeted me include: a Nigerian evangelist who believes in “child witches”; former activists with the EDL; a man with a long history of bad debt and grandiosity; a sockpuppeting tabloid journalist; and a self-serving “celebrity” MP who deploys smears to discourage scrutiny.

The bad faith of such sites and Tweets ought to be self-evident. However, any readers interested in the true background can read this and this.